Salmon Rushdie :: essays papers

Salmon Rushdie In a world that is ready to criticize the slightest fault, or impropriety of a person's character, or way of thinking, authors, such as Salmon Rushdie, are continually under fire. In his writings, Rushdie takes the aspects of typical every day life and satirizes them in a way that enables his readers to realize how nonsensical they may be. Through centuries of diverse writing and literary changes, one thing remains the same: writers, no matter who they are, or what their standing in society is, will be criticized. Salmon Rushdie, although a modern writer, is faced with much criticism that earlier writers also faced. In June of 1947, in Bombay, India, a child was born. A child who would grow up to become one of the most outspoken and radical writers of this modern era. Born in a time of political unrest (DISCovering), and a newly found freedom for India from British rule, Rushdie would grow not to find freedom through his writings, but a deep rooted criticism. Educated at The Cathedral Boys' School, and then Cambridge, Rushdie had a refined learning experience. When Rushdie started his career in writing he was unable to support himself and therefore held jobs such as acting and copyrighting until he was able to himself support as a writer. Rushdie's first published book, Grimus, tells the story of an American Indian who receives the gift of immortality and begins an odessy to find the meaning of life. Initially this work attracted the attention of the science fiction readers(DISCovering). The books genre is very often disagreed upon by critics, and has been called a fable, fantasy, political satire, and magical realism(DISCovering). Being "an ambitious, strikingly confident first work(DISCovering)," Rushdie was able to establish himself in the literary world as a writer. In his second book, Rushdie turned back to his homeland to find the subject that he wished to write about. Midnight's Children chronicles the recent history of India, beginning in 1947 when the country became free from British rule(DISCovering). In this allegorical work, Rushdie uses the characters to represent hopes as well as the frustrating realities of India's newly found freedom. Shame is Rushdie's third book. In this work he presents an astonishing account of events in an unnamed country that strongly resembles Pakistan. The major theme in this work is shame verses honor. The Satanic Verses is probably Rushdie's most popular and most controversial work. In this ambiguous work, Rushdie explores the themes relating to good and evil, religious faith and fanaticism, illusion verses reality, and the plight of Indians who have relocated to Great Britain.

Leaving home Essay

Note: I think u should define the authors definition of obligation and loyalty in the introduction or ur understanding of their definitions in terms of ur thesis cuz sometimes its hard to understand the difference b/w the two..and that shouldn’t really happen cuz that is the focus of ur essay Red: corrections (make sure u read the sentence wit read stuff cuz the whole sentence had to change sometimes) Blue: comments Yellow highlight: erase those things (not needed) Leaving home is a difficult choice for any individual to make. A decision of this caliber contains conditions of no obligation, enforced obligation, and obligation in conflict with loyalty. Under these circumstances, a citizen’s loyalty to his/her country ceases to make sense, which is supported by Shklar’s article, â€Å"Obligation, loyalty, exile†. Judith Shklar, in her essay has evidently analyzed the argument of ‘obligation, loyalty and exile’, in regards to emigration. Though there are many unconditional matters to be questioned, the focus of this essay will be on the in my interest to structure (structure of wat, exile?) and define the chosen reasons for exile argued in Shklar’s article. â€Å"In ordinary talk the two words loyalty and obligation are generally used interchangeably as if they were identical†, but it is Shklar’s argument â€Å"that it is important not only to keep them apart but to go on to make clear the distinctions between obligation, commitment, loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity†. (Shklar, 182) This essay will support her argument and show how both obligation and loyalty are both principle elements that force a person to exile. Obligation is defined as rule governed conducts and â€Å"political obligation specifically refers to laws and law-like demands, made by public agencies.† (Shklar, 183) When thinking of obligation, one may connect it with loyalty. Many individuals come to the conclusion that obligation exists where there is loyalty, but another view argued by Shklar argues is that it is more rational to ‘keep them separate’. Through her extreme examples of exiles such as ‘limiting case’, Shklar’s arguments are adequate and evident. (I don’t think u need this sentence, if u want it there, it needs to be reworded-try to maintain one tense-usually present tense) It is an individual right to feel protected by his or her own country, a right for a sense of belonging, and, most importantly, mainly a the right to be protected. With regards to obligation and exile, it is common practice to one would question the importance of justice. â€Å"Injustice not only cancels obligations and undermines loyalties, however resilient the latter may seem; it also engenders the conflict between obligation and the effective ties that bind us†. (Shklar, 197) Hence, if this statement is true,(don’t say this ur trying to prove ur thesis, by saying if, ur argument weakens-ur arguments have to be strong) it is reasonable to conclude that justice arises with the presence of both obligation and loyalty. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain justice due to the rise in swindle, cheating, and lying in government strategy. Betrayal to state and irrational obligation has become another reason why an individual would exile from his or her country. (this sentence doesn’t really flow with the essay at this point, but maybe if u reword it, itl work-but seems like its another agrument in itself) Enforcement of law, where forced obligation becomes unbearable, may also lead an individual to exile. The author portrayed this reason of exile through an example of a French army man, Traifis. Traifis was accused of passing secret’s to German’s and was convicted and charged accordingly. Through all of this, he still became loyal to obey (wrong word-wat r u trying to say?-protect?) his country, though in reality he was betrayed by his own state. The author finds it difficult to understanding how one could still be loyal to a country without feeling obligated. (this needs to be explained more-the definitions of the 2 cuz its hard to understand the difference at this point, or how they do/don’t relate to eachother) His obligation ceased, and he signed up with the army again; this shows that his loyalty is greater than the feeling of obligation. This is a case which Shklar would describe as â€Å"crazy†. (don’t need this sentence) It is important to note how Shklar stresses that â€Å"obligation is a reasoned answer†. If one cannot come up with a reasoned answer as to why he or she should obey, then there is no place for obligation to exist. (this is good to put in ur intro to describe the meaning of obligation in the eyes of the author†¦if not, put it in the beginning of this argument, it’ll help the reader understand ur argument better) An important point to note is that those who leave home do not necessarily disobey the state, but rather the state has disobeyed them. As one’s right to feel safe is taken away, the insecurity drives the citizen away from his or her own land. Shklar uses more specific and extreme cases to strengthen her argument that it is the degree of injustice and cruelty that many ordinary people have been through in the past, and unfortunately many more are victims of same examples today. (u need a more strong concluding sentence and I think u should only uses this lsat point if u give an actual example from the article-if its just a point within her essay, don’t say it’s a specific extreme case-maybe say that she is strong to point out that†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..) Government conduct is only one of the driving factors of exile, for emotional attachment plays a large part in an individuals actions as well. (this is to tie in the two arguments together, as for the beginning of the sentence, that’s wat I understood of the first argument, if its wrong, then change it†¦.jus wanted to give u a idea for a concluding sentence) The emotional attachment to loyalty varies that from obligation. Sklar points out that â€Å"[t]he emotional character of loyalty also sets it apart from obligation. If obligation is rule driven, loyalty is motivated by the entire personality of an agent. Political loyalty is evoked by nations, ethnic groups, churches, parties, and by doctraines, causes, ideologies, or faiths that form and identify associations.† (Shklar, 184). Thus, loyalty is deeply affective and not primarily rational. (Shklar, 184) These are all characters that enhance a person’s beliefs and values, and are very essential to one’s personality, and, most importantly, affect the person’s judgment regarding loyalty. The above mentioned characteristics also give the individual a sense of ‘identity’ (if this is a quote from the article, it needs to be referenced). As the author argues, â€Å"political loyalty may survive, but not obligation to obey the law. That is why I assumed that exiles have no obligation to the country that expels them illegally and unconstitutionally†, demonstrating how loyalty exceeds obligation. (Shklar, 190) If the state refuses to oblige to citizens responsibility, then in return the citizen is not ‘obligated'(don’t use quotes-maybe italisize or bold for affect-only try to use quotes for direct ones, otherwise it gets confusing) to obey its state. The tension of loyalty arises as the terms nationalism, betrayal, fear of its own state, and most importantly ‘exile’, are questioned. The physical and emotional abuse of state being the push factor of your exile, makes one’s belonging to his/her own country meaningless, and makes the ‘other side’ (wat is the other side?) seem more prominent. If one is loyal to a country, one may choose to stay, though on the other hand, obligation would not last as long as loyalty. Though it may seem easier to exile (maybe u should use flee the country or something, exile doesn’t seem to fit) without feeling obligated to his or her state, but the choice is still difficult to make. When loyalty is questioned, one becomes very pessimistic of his or her own conclusions, as loyalty is a feeling that is not reasoned, but is not irrational. Leaving home is not an easy choice for any individual to make, this point has been now stated several times in this essay and has a stronger meaning than one may think. (I don’t think u need this sentence to start of this paragraph) Leaving home can be described by the word exile, which can be defined as: â€Å"someone who involuntarily leaves the country of which he or she is a citizen.† (Shklar, 187). Exile can be caused by poverty, fear, war, betrayal of politics and/or injustice. All these elements in one’s mind can be judged by the religion of obligation and loyalty. Suffering the threat of exile can sometimes be worse than a soldier taking off to fight in war. My parents also faced a great obstacle which lead them to face the fear of exile. The life story of my parents that has taken place from country to country, Pakistan to Norway, and Norway to Canada. At a young age, my parents moved from Pakistan to Norway in hope for a bright future. Though they were both loyal to their home country, they felt no obligation to stay and change its unstable political state. My mother joined my father after he had established a business and home, and as years passed they both became good citizens of Norway, and my mother joined the government working for the immigration department. Aside from their own professions, they were both journalists working for their own small community in the city of Oslo. As they worked closer with the state, the feeling of belonging became more uncomfortable. This was a kind of state which did not appreciate your religion and/or culture. Hence, Norway can be described as a very nationalist country. At the age of seven, I was sent to live with my aunt in Pakistan to start school there. It was not the knowledge of math or science that was better, but the knowledge of my religion and culture that was very important to my family. Living in a Caucasian (another word for white) society, my parents were scared that I would not be able to interact with the people that surrounded me due to the difference in our religious and cultural beliefs. As the separation (separation from wat?) was starting to become difficult, my parents were forced to search for another solution. As a child, I cannot recall finding it very difficult to fit it (use another word for fit in-its too casual), but as years passed, I realized the ‘ugly truth of being an outcast’, and started noticing little incidents where I was treated different then the rest of the group. My parents had always known this reality, but chose to stay silent, thinking it may be ignored. It became more visible when my teacher started behaving different. I was a good student, and when my participation was greater than the rest of the group, I was simply asked to leave the class. As I left, I left with great pain and humiliation. My parents were well settled with a prosperous business and a good life within our home, though the outside reality of life was very constrained. Though they were fortunate in wealth, they were less fortunate in freedom of expressing their own identity. The struggle to seeking an ethnological society led to a search for a better land, where freedom to be oneself was considered as an important right. This is how I ended up in POL81A at the University of Toronto. My parents packed up everything they had worked hard for over the last twenty-four years and migrated to Canada. Being able to attend Friday prayers at mosque or celebrate Eid with joy or simple things like being able to say â€Å"I am Muslim†, were characteristics that mattered the most for my family. Being able to live in an environment of tolerance, acceptance and multiculturalism is like living in peace after war. It is important to note that my parents always obeyed the state, but they lost their loyalty as they lost their identity. The restricted conditions which forced my family to hide their identity, forced us to exile into a strange country, but in hope for a promised land. Politics has formed its behavior into a universal religion, where its faith depends on loyalty and obligation. Comments: ur last argument was very well written†¦.and made up very well might I add 🙂 neways, I hope my comments help, cuz sometimes I really didn’t no how to change some if without really knowing wat the article was about. Good luck!

Marcus Brutus The True Tragic Hero in Julius Caesar, by...

The play Julius Caesar, written by William Shakespeare, starts out with a celebration in 44 BC Rome exactly one month before the Ides of March, which is when a group of conspirators plan on murdering Caesar. Cassius, the leader of the conspiracy, tries to recruit Marcus Brutus into the group because he believes it will make them look less like murderers and more like heroes. He agrees and helps carry out the assassination. The story continues after Caesar’s death with a series of disagreements between characters and ultimately a civil war involving Brutus and Cassius and their armies, and Mark Antony’s army. Even though the play is called Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus is the real tragic hero because he is very well respected, he assumes everyone thinks the same way as him, and he ends up killing himself. Brutus is always very well respected because he was very close to Caesar and an important part in his senate. His decision is always final in the play. For example, the conspirators are not sure if they want to include Cicero in the group but Brutus does not want Cicero to join, so they decide not to include him. Another example would be when the group contemplates killing Mark Antony. Brutus argues that they would look like murderers if they killed Antony, so it they decided against killing Antony. When Brutus and Cassius have different ideas about how they should attack Antony’s army, Cassius says, â€Å"Then with your will go on; We’ll along ourselves, and meet them atShow MoreRelated Marcus Brutus as Tragic Hero in Shakespeares Julius Caesar Essays735 Words   |  3 PagesMarcus Brutus as Tragic Hero in Shakespeares Julius Caesar      Ã‚   In many stories there is a tragic hero. The hero finds out about himself and the people around him in the story. In Shakespeares play, Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus is the tragic hero. The play Julius Caesar is about politics and betrayal in ancient Rome. Brutus is part of the senate, which is below Caesar, who is soon to be crowned. The senate wants to overthrow Caesar to save Rome. To do this the senate has to get BrutusRead MoreExamples Of Tragic Hero In Julius Caesar905 Words   |  4 Pagesbecome a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall.† By Shakespearean definition, a tragic hero is someone of high position such as a nobleman, who has hamartia, a tragic flaw that leads to his downfall, and even his demise. This is strongly illustrated in Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, where Marcus Brutus’ desire to remain noble and honourable leads him to naivety and self destruction. The plot of the play revolves around removing power from Caesar, causing the inability of Marcus BrutusRead MoreJulius Caesar the True Tragic Hero1526 Words   |  7 Pagesdoesn’t become a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall.† These words best describe what a â€Å"Tragic Hero† is and both Julius Caesar and Brutus displayed this characteristic, so the question is â€Å"Who is the real tragic hero in this story?† This paper shall explore the reasons behind why each man is considered a hero in his own right and who the rightful owner to the title of the play truly belongs to. There have been countless tragic heroes in the works of William Shakespeare such as MacbethRead MoreMarcus Brutus: Shakespeares Tragic Hero in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar1238 Words   |  5 PagesWilliam Shakespeare illustrates Marcus Brutus as a tragic hero in the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Shakespeare defines tragic hero as a flawed character who has good fortune, and then loses all he has prized, leading to his misfortune, but a tragic hero must have that moment of enlightenment, that moment where a character can see that he caused his own downfall and receives the blame for his own tragedy. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is based on an historical event- the assassination of JuliusRead MoreMarcus Brutus: The Tragic Hero Of Julius Ceasar972 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"A man cannot become a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall.†(Aristotle). It should be noted that the Heroes downfall is his own fault as a result of his own free will, At times his death is seen as a waste of human potential. His death usually is not a pure loss, because it results in greater knowledge and awareness. In Julius Ceasar, William Shakespeare develops Marcus Brutus as the Tragic Hero whose ambition and naivety in his blind confidence in the nobility of man sparked guidanceRead MoreThe Tragedy Of Julius Caesar1483 Words   |  6 PagesThe Tragedy of Julius Caesar has catastrophe in more characters than just Caesar. William Shakespeare presented Marcus Brutus in a way that closely followed the example of a tragic hero. Brutus came from noble birth, had a fatal flaw, suffered a great tragedy. Brutus also fits into Shakespeare’s variation of tragic heroes, by giving Brutus complexity, internal conflict, and using choice over fate. Brutus’ ultimate goal is fulfilled by in part by his actions. Brutus thought his cause to be honorableRead MoreJulius Caesar by William Shakespeare560 Words   |  2 Pagestragedy is a story in where the main character obtains a flaw that leads to their downfall. This main character, called a tragic hero, possesses qualities that cause their demise. These qualities are called tragic flaws. In Julius Caesar, both Julius Caesar and Brutus can be seen as tragic heroes. However, Brutus is the most tragic hero of the two. The qualities that make Brutus a hero are also the qualities that lead to his downfall. He cares about everyone, and makes each decision for the good of RomeRead MoreEssay about Marcus Brutus: Praetor, Senator, and Tragic Hero858 Words   |  4 PagesMarcus Brutus: Praetor, Senator, and Tragic Hero The famous play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, written by the esteemed playwright William Shakespeare, details the plight of Marcus Brutus and the other Roman conspirators against the dictator Julius Caesar. There are several tragic heroes in this play who suffer extreme downfalls. A tragic hero is a character who was once in high regard or standing but encounters a series of terrible events that contribute to a giant downfall from that position.Read MoreHonorable Betrayal Essay1044 Words   |  5 PagesHonorable Betrayal The William Shakespeare play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar tells the story of the assassination of Julius Caesar and the eight conspirators behind it. The play takes place in 44 B.C. in Rome. Marcus Brutus is the protagonist and face-man of the insidious conspiracy. He is also the tragic hero in this classic work of literature. Aristotle’s definition of the tragic hero is a character that has a character flaw, also known as hubris, and experiences a downfall from a high positionRead MoreTragic Hero In Julius Caesar829 Words   |  4 PagesWhat is a tragic hero? A tragic hero is a person, of noble birth, with heroic potential but doomed by fate. The hero struggles against his fate but eventually fails because of a mistake or even a flaw. In Shakespeare’s play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, a character may come to mind and fit this definition, Marcus Brutus. In this play, Julius Caesar’s ambition for power drove the honorable Brutus to think negatively about C aesar’s position of being the king of Rome. The honorable Brutus shows his